It wouldn't have mattered. In spite of how much I do want DC to have voting rights in the House, I am of the firm belief that the proposal as accepted by the House is blatantly unconstitutional. The document is very clear to me:The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. It would take no time at all for a lawsuit to be filed by the other states that would result in an immediate injunction on the law (should Bush have even signed it, and hints are he wouldn't have).
Would having the Senate actually debate this publically have changed anything? I really doubt it.
The ONLY enduring solution to the DC voting problem is an amendment to the Constitution.
You're probably right about this proposal being unconstitutional, but I get really pissed at debate-blocking votes.
Would having the Senate actually debate this publically have changed anything? I really doubt it.
I do think it might have. I believe part of the problem is a lack of awareness. When people outside D.C. learn the facts, they generally agree that it sucks and they would favor voting rights for D.C. residents. So Sente debate could have served a purpose.
The ONLY enduring solution to the DC voting problem is an amendment to the Constitution.
Retrocession might be OK too. But since I don't live in Maryland, I can't really make that argument.
Thing is, the "debate" has already happened, numerous times, over the years.
And does anybody actually pay attention when the Senate debates? Unless it has to do with Iraq, the news haven't covered a Senate event in any detail in years, and nobody really watches CSPAN. What would have changed?
Unless those who would consider an amendment were really able to use such a debate to present their case AND be prepared to lobby the states for it (such a proposal failed in 1978), then nothing will change. The supporters are too busy supporting this current bill, the dissenters are going to ignore it forever, so it comes down to what I call "academic" conservatives who see the debate as futile because it can't really address the core issue.
Way back when DC was denied voting status it was specifically because DC residents had direct access to the country's representatives prior to cars, trains and air travel. Who claims that DC residents have that kind of access to the government in these modern times? (Technically, I concede John Q. Public CAN meet and greet most of them at one time or another at Camelot on M Street, but that's not the point
( ... )
I was thinking something similar. Give them a voting house person as a district in "MD" that is soley made up of DC (or redo MD so that DC makes up most of a district itself). They get to vote on the MD senators (just as they would if they were still part of MD). They wouldn't get MD legislative votes (because they don't need them). There presidential votes would be mixed in with the rest of MD.
Heck, give DC back the portion that VA took back and have that section (south of the Potomac) have the same concessions as the MD one.
The constitution does not recognize "commonwealths" at all. By the terms of the constitution, those 4 states ratified the constitution and joined AS STATES and are recognized as such. That they call themselves something different, to themselves, is irrelevant. Commonwealth only had any meaning with regard to how their original laws were derived from English Common Law, nothing more
( ... )
Comments 14
It would take no time at all for a lawsuit to be filed by the other states that would result in an immediate injunction on the law (should Bush have even signed it, and hints are he wouldn't have).
Would having the Senate actually debate this publically have changed anything? I really doubt it.
The ONLY enduring solution to the DC voting problem is an amendment to the Constitution.
Reply
Would having the Senate actually debate this publically have changed anything? I really doubt it.
I do think it might have. I believe part of the problem is a lack of awareness. When people outside D.C. learn the facts, they generally agree that it sucks and they would favor voting rights for D.C. residents. So Sente debate could have served a purpose.
The ONLY enduring solution to the DC voting problem is an amendment to the Constitution.
Retrocession might be OK too. But since I don't live in Maryland, I can't really make that argument.
Reply
And does anybody actually pay attention when the Senate debates? Unless it has to do with Iraq, the news haven't covered a Senate event in any detail in years, and nobody really watches CSPAN. What would have changed?
Unless those who would consider an amendment were really able to use such a debate to present their case AND be prepared to lobby the states for it (such a proposal failed in 1978), then nothing will change. The supporters are too busy supporting this current bill, the dissenters are going to ignore it forever, so it comes down to what I call "academic" conservatives who see the debate as futile because it can't really address the core issue.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Heck, give DC back the portion that VA took back and have that section (south of the Potomac) have the same concessions as the MD one.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment